Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Fan publications * Who's Who in Star Trek (book) * The Physics of Star Trek * To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek * Life Signs: The Biology of Star Trek * The Best of Trek These are non-Paramount licensed books. Other such books are collected on the Fan publications page, so, these should logically be merged into that page. There are likely more, but these are the ones that I've come across to date. -- Sulfur 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC) :These are not truly "fan" publications as they are published by reputable publishers (at least those I am familiar with). I am unclear why Paramount licensing is the touchstone for inclusion in the database. I would say, for those published by major publishing houses (not paid for by the author him or herself, in other words) to Keep. Aholland 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) If not to merge/delete, and to keep as is, it might be an idea to perhaps create some sort of identification that they are "non-licensed" items, or at least non-Paramount. I'm also not saying that we should only have Paramount licensed items here, but that we should at least distinguish between "official" stuff, and not-quite "official" stuff. -- Sulfur 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC) ::They may not be officially licensed, but unlike fan films and the like, these books were published by official, professional publications. I think we should either keep these or, if that's not good, then move them to a list for unofficial publications or something. --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Hrm... I see the points brought up here. Perhaps a category of unofficial publications (or something as such) could be created and used to indicate these non-licensed, but still published items. -- Sulfur 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC) * Weak keep, and I can think of a couple other ones that would be on this list and just don't have pages yet that I've seen in book stores ("The Religion of Star Trek", and maybe those trivia books? Actually those may be liscenced, I'm not sure.) - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Keep, they are already non-canon. Yes, they aren't licensed, but they seem pretty professional (well, at least Physics of Star Trek is). I would not call them "fan publications". --OuroborosCobra talk 10:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Administrative Operations ;Administrative Operations Created by the same anon who made Hazard ops. I have seen this around the web a few times, usually created because it is assumed it must exist if there is a Hazard ops. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Comment: I wondered whether to nominate AO for deletion when I noticed the hazard ops page, so I looked in the Starfleet's history to see who/why/when AO was added to the list of agencies. It appears that an Anon added it, and cited DS9: "Paradise Lost" as the reference. The page for G. Mignaccia mentions the AO as seen on-screen, but it is not mentioned in the script. - Intricated 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Comment Well, if that is the case, and I think it needs to be confirmed, the article still would need to be re-written. RIght now it says it is the "office is responsible for running starfleet" --OuroborosCobra talk 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :::Comment: Someone with the DS9 DVDs can confirm, even get a screenshot. So I'm sure all those PNAs definitely have a place for the time being. - Intricated 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Keep: Administrative Operations is seen among many other Starfleet agencies on the personnel assignment log in "Paradise Lost". I added two screenshots of that log showing all names seen to the page. May the creation of new Starfleet officers and agencies pages begin! ;-) --Jörg 10:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Keep now that the source is covered fully. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Keep as per above. Thanks Jörg for your amazing screencapping skills. - Intricated 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Keep, but the article still needs to be re-written. It is still making assumptions about what AO does that cannot be inferred from these screenshots. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC) :::Comment: OK then, go ahead and re-write it. Be bold in updating pages; we ain't stopping you. :) - Intricated 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Comment I would, but I don't have a source for what they do either ;-) --OuroborosCobra talk 14:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC) * Keep. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Non-canon name redirects A bunch of redirect were created today for non-canon names to redirect to the canon name article. These names seem to mostly come from the CCGs, if I am not mistaken: * Audit's Spoils * Aurulent * Janitza class * Na'Far class * Perikian class * Ma-Karn class Do we really need them? They are non-canon, after all. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC) *That doesn't mean they don't exist bud. You can't just yell "non-canon" and pretend things aren't within reason for being typed into the search box. Err on the side of accessibility. - :I would just like to say that I did not just "yell non-canon". I put them up for a vote. If the community votes in favor of keeping them, I will accept that. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) *'Comment', if we do choose to keep these, we must ensure that we add them to the non-canon redirect page. -- Sulfur 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :I say keep them -- but we must make sure they stay orphaned except by games, novels and comics. Non-canon names should not be linked to from main article text. We aren't trying to say that non-canon doesn't exist -- we are trying to keep it out of articles, however ;) -- Captain M.K.B. 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC) B'Edra ...is now a redirect to the novel she's from, but I don't think we should keep it. It started off as a fairly obvious "...is a Non-Canon character from the novel..." article, so the more "non-canon" lks. we have might confuse people. - AJ Halliwell 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Template:APOV I suspect this is some sort of vandalism, or at least, another complication added to this site that really seems unnecessary considering the intent of MA is to accurately present information as it is presented in the series. Whether or not we have succeeded at it in some of the articles in question is a completely different bag. --Alan del Beccio 00:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' --OuroborosCobra talk 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. I'll also say again, there is no such word as "alternatility", so exactly what the hell is being disputed. --From Andoria with Love 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. I have absolutely no idea what an "alternatality dispute" might be. Also delete the category used. -- Cid Highwind 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Template:NPOV Similar to the above template, this one is a (currently orphaned) message about an existing "neutrality dispute" - another thing we didn't yet have here, and probably don't need. -- Cid Highwind 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': Unlike APOV, this one actually makes some sense. I can see the possibility of needing this, although perhaps changed to be "PNA-NPOV". I'm not sure if it is really needed, PNA on its own might work, as long as comments are left in the talk page to explain a reason (one of my biggest problems with the PNAs is that people put them up without doing this, so no one knows what is needed to fix or takedown the PNA). --OuroborosCobra talk 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete. PNA's worked just fine so far. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Unnamed Vulcans (25th century) All of its contents are already in Unnamed Starfleet personnel (future). In addition, the only Vulcans here are members of Starfleet, and therefore belong in Unnamed Starfleet personnel (future). As an example, there are no starfleet officers listed in Unnamed Vulcans (24th century). --OuroborosCobra talk 11:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * Hence why I didn't create the page when I split the Unnamed Vulcans page up some time ago-- delete. --Alan del Beccio 02:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Template:If Since the parser functions are now working properly, Template:If is no longer needed. All occurrences have been replaced by #if. -- Renegade54 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete if ya know what yer doin. I've personally never heard of any of this. Also, the talk page seems to indicate this has been voted for deletion before... - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Gerald Ford Never mentioned in Star Trek. The reason it is put up is in the articles talk page,and while interesting, still provides no evidence of a Star Trek reference. The citations in the article are invalid. They are citations as to when the Space Shuttle Enterprise was shown in Star Trek. While Gerald Ford may have signed the order to build the Enterprise in our world, this is never mentioned in canon in Star Trek, and not in those citations. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * Keep Well he is mentioned in the Star Trek tributes and Enterprise (OV-101) pages as having named the space shuttle Enterprise, the latter half in the background section. Perhaps the second paragraph of this article should be put in a background section in a similar fashion that some info about other US Presidents such as Ronald Reagan have background sections which discuss the real life background a President has to Star Trek even if he isnt officially mentioned or even shown as some presidents are in Storm Front: Part II. So because of the Storm Front scene there is already a precedent set for Presidents not listed by name having a page, otherwise the most recent US president listed by name in cannon Star Trek is Nixon. --Chicago103 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :The precedent set by Storm Front is that presidents not named, but seen, can have articles. Ford is not seen or named. Also, Star Trek tributes is not a canon source, neither is background of another article. Countless things are mentioned in background without getting their own articles, such as things that starships are named after. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :Well is there a place where there is a complete list of Storm Front timestream images? The ones shown on here are incomplete, its possible Ford was shown but noone here has caught it yet.--Chicago103 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ::I don't know of one, and until proof of his existence in Star Trek is found, the article has to go, IMO. Remember, it can be undeleted later, if a Star Trek reference is found. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete, unless an actual screencap of him can be found in the montage. (After looking through it a couple times, I don't see him anywhere...) - AJ Halliwell 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete, same condition as above. -- Renegade54 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete. Yes, he was mentioned on the Star Trek tributes and Enterprise (OV-101) pages... but the first is a production POV article, while his mentioned in the second article is in the background info. There was a good reason why he wasn't linked in either article – because he has never been seen or referenced in Star Trek. --From Andoria with Love 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete -Alan del Beccio 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC) * Keep and change to real world perspective, still notable in the sense that the shuttle was named after the TV show, so re-write as a production sided article, rather than as a character--152.163.101.14 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Star Trek versus Star Wars I don't think this really goes along with the type of article we put up at MA. I was tempted to put this up for immediate deletion, as it seems to me to be similar to an article deleted on 30 December 2004 (from the archive), but I cannot say that without a doubt. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *Also, this is a direct copy from Wookieepedia, and since we don't seem to like copies from Wikipedia, why would we like one from Wookieepedia? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC) The following was moved from Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements: ;Star Trek versus Star Wars : Copied from Wookieepedia, unnecessary on MA. --From Andoria with Love 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :Although I see now that it should be deleted, I must note that it isn't a copyvio, as Wookieepedia content is licensed under the GFDL. -- Adamwankenobi 02:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::Delete. --From Andoria with Love 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :*'delete' -- Sulfur 03:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Although it should probably be mentioned as a footnote in one of the Real-World pov pages, like Parodies or dedications or somethign... - AJ Halliwell 05:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) * DELETE ASAP The LAST thing we need is something luring the "Warsies" over here...they'd promptly run amok and trash the place...just as Darkstar about their ways (he's delt with them before)... :)Capt Christopher Donovan 07:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete; also since this is a copyvio as well, the content should be removed. --Alan del Beccio17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', per Capt Christopher Donovan. Adamwankenobi 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Door Are we so desperate for new articles that we now have to define everyday objects? No matter how much some creative individual dolls up this page, we are still not a dictionary. Period. --Alan del Beccio 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': I agree we are not a dictionary, but there is a lot of door technology seen in Star Trek. Perhaps it would be good to havean article that talks about them. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC) **'Keep' the door is one of the most memorable pieces of technology trek writers have come up with. If you want to start scrapping pointless articles start elsewhere... perhaps with paper. Jaf 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf * Comment - Maybe a page on "Door Technology"? or "Automatic Doors" or something. Cause there was all the times the door would react funny to someone walking to it, and plenty of Alien-looking doors, plus that weird door in "Pen Pals." But "Door" does kinda give the wrong impression...- 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Clothing ;Shoe ;Hat ;Sun glasses OK, this is getting out of hand. We have articles about uniforms. Maybe we can have a single article about other clothing, but this is just nuts --OuroborosCobra talk 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *I'm still going to go with keeping this stuff, it's my opinion that everything ever in trek should eventually be compiled. However, I get why this stuff might annoy some people, so if we have to let it go we should create some kind of policy on what goes and what stays, because there are endless articles like this, spoon for example. Jaf 18:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Jaf *Maybe not keep them, but they should be merged (with entirely different content) into other articles. IE: Guinans hats should one day have a page, maybe "El-Aurian Fasion"? And the ENT crews hats should be on their uniform page somewhere. As are their sunglasses, which were referenced in a couple episodes (include "The Forge", where Archer offers T'Pol his sunglasses, and she mentions the extra eyelid...) But shoe may be completely useless. so Revamp and merge. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Star Trek: New Voyages Fan films do not get there own articles, they get an entryin the fan films article. New Voyages already has an entry there. This might be a candidate for immediate deletion. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :The page was deleted twice, once by Captain Mike (non-canon, non-valid, voted for deletion after 2+ days on VfD) 4 September 2005, second time by me (non canon, voted to delete on 4 September 2005; speedy delete candidate per #6) 6 October 2005. However something must be done to prevent the page being created again. I vote redirect and lock -- Kobi 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :: Redirect and lock and smile --Alan del Beccio 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC) * Redirect it, lock it, and forget it! - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) :*I've already redirect'ed this, btw, since it had already been previously deleted. --From Andoria with Love 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Soch Translation of this Klingon word. Should be (at best) merged into Klingon language. At worst, just removal. -- Sulfur 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *'Merge with Klingon language. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' and delete. --From Andoria with Love 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Micro-quantum torpedo I am 99% sure this is never mentioned in canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete. I believe this is only from the DS9 Tech Manual, never seen/heard on screen. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete, they also show up in a couple of the video games and books. -- Sulfur 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Feature length and Finale Dictionary definition. My bet is that finale will be added next. -- Sulfur 16:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) And it was added next. So, adding that to the VfD. -- Sulfur 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', and someone needs to tell Ibentmywookie to stop putting upthese dictionary definitions. *sigh* I'll do it. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete,' and beat ya to it. - AJ Halliwell 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' both. --From Andoria with Love 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)